Originally Posted by growlers

The chance of a hand getting raised behind you even at .50-1.00 table is much higher than I think Miller accounted for when making those hand tables.

The chance it getting raised behind me playing live $4-8 if I limp UTG with 55 or KJs is at worst 10% when I play an afternoon game. It is much higher online.

I completely agree that the whole point is that what matters is what kind of table you are sitting at, my arguement is not that there is something "magical" when you are playing online that makes it different, my point is that the vast majority of online tables are too aggressive pre and post flop to follow his reccomendations - doesn't he want you playing Q9s?

Have you found a online site for full ring where the AVERAGE to the flop is 6-7? Because that is often what it is live. VPIP >>50%. Hell, a good table online is 35% and the PFR will be higher than the >>50% VPIP live table.

That obviously changes alot, and that is why I think people quoting Miller's starting hand chart for live 50-80% PFRis dangerous for a online 25-30% table where PFR is also two or three times as frequent.

So yes, apply the concepts correctly - that is exactly what I am saying and my arguement is that people aren't applying the concepts correctly.

Originally Posted by Aces-o-8s
Well, excuuuussssse me! I thought utilizing a known reference would add to the general discussion especially from a respected author on the subject!

Seeing as we all agree to appling the concepts correctly I'm wondering just how I or other people quoting Ed Miller had mis-applied them? You say that online players are entering the pot 25-30% which for a full ring game is on average 2.5 - 3 players. Miller uses 2 starting hands tables of which the 'Tight' table is for 3-5 players entering the pot! Miller's table for Tight tables supported your position in regards to 55 in an EARLY position!

I went even further by stating:

as it had been my experience that with online tables you have to paly tighter than Miller suggests for for both tight and loose tables b/c you can expect to be raised often making a cheap look at the flop much harder from an EP - you're often looking at a re-raise so the expressed odds get screwed up although the implied odds get better!

So while I respect Miller's work, I don't fall into the disciple catagory by following it to the letter but 'apply the concept' according to the table and situation.

Originally Posted by growlers

Ok, well off the top I'll say I'm a bit trashed but I still read this three times and think we are saying the same thing - but you seemed to take offense to what I said. I wasn't singling you out - I was quoting Marm who said that there wasn't any difference between online and live - the table dynamics are what is important.
Which I clearly agree with - it doesn't matter if it is online or live - but the reality is that the table dynamics ON AVERAGE are much different live than the are online.
The average Vegas table at 2-4 to 4-8 on a non weekend, non drunken-orgy raise-fest, is VPIP > 50% and a PFR around 5-10%. The average pokerstars non-micro table maybe has a VPIP of 27% and is much more aggressvie preflop.
You can't tell me that the strategy for both is the same.
So we have had multiple threads recently where there has been some discussion about whether somebody's preflop raise/limp/call whatever has been questioned, and people brought up Miller's chart in their explanation.
My contention is that this chart is made for small stakes live table where the play is loose and actually more importantly passive, the "tight" chart as you just said in your post is still looser than the average online table, you stated the numbers 2.5-3 vs 3-5.
Even more important is the chance of you getting raised behind your limp, which is much higher online. All this changes the EV of limping with 55 UTG.

So anyway, in the bolded part - I'm not sure why you think I am addressing you specifically, I quoted Marm in my reply.

If you can find a passive table with VPIP of 50% then limp all day long with pairs and suited connectors. I don't play as much online as you guys but I have NEVER found a table above .25-50 at full ring that was passive with a VPIP >50% on 12 different sites I've played at that level and above.

I think I have made a valid point and stick by it. This is why "starting hand charts" are generally BS - they are too generalized - it is the concepts behind the charts that matter - and I think that the average online table is different than what the starting hand charts in SSHE were designed for.

Originally Posted by Aces-o-8s
Here's what Ed Miller says about 55 from EP in SSH.

Early Position (first 3 seat left of blinds)

Tight Table (3-5 players)
Play - AA-77 (55 doesn't qualify until MP)
Raise - AA-TT
Against a raise - Play AA-TT; Re-raise AA-TT

Loose Table (6-8 players)
Play - Any pocket pair - 55 qualifies
Raise - AA-99
Against a Raise - Play any pocket pair, Re-raise AA-99

With all due respect to Ed Miller, I play small pocket pairs as if the table is Tight no matter how loose it is!

Originally Posted by growlers

And if the previous post is too long for the casual browsers of this thread, I'll keep it short and sweet:
You log onto pokerstars and see a full ring table with VPIP of 30-50% and this is considered "tight"???

No, you click madly on the waitlist because you want on that table.

As for "loose":
VPIP of 60-80% - have you EVER seen this at full ring???

I rest my case.

Rip into me, people. I have to sleep now so it may be awhile before I attempt to rebut the hurled insults. Keep in mind I am completely trashed!
But I do think this is an interesting topic for discussion given several recent threads where Miller's hand charts were brought up.

My girlfriend's been playing a ton of nickel/dime limit and I bought her SSH and she's thumbed through my HEFAP a lot and merging the two has worked for her. She made a great point in that she treats tens like decues because she's playing for a set with all of the people in the hand, someone will beat it and she'll spend more money trying to find out whether she's beat with tens than deuces when the odds are the same for both to set. Though this could sound extreme, and of course she making small discriminations, it makes perfect sense.

Coming from a novice who's just a good pattern mapper makes the most sense in this as well. Sets win pots whether their Aces or deuces. Whether it's a set of Aces or deuces, you have to be mindful or straights and flushes THE SAME. Easy little tidbit of basic knowledge that gets easily overlooked in the world of poker snob bookworms.

I definitely agree with her, not just because it's only way I can get a beer from the fridge in my condition, so I agree with you. Great points, growlers.

I'm not sure where this thread is going to lead - if anywhere - I do fear however, that just as NL is a totally different game than Limit that live and online may end up getting likewise labled! Not so sure that's true - just has degrees of table conditions!

I also hope this doesn't lead to a trashing of various books although a few I've read certainly fall short of quality work! Some of the best and worst I've read have been by the same author (Sklanski) but I always manage to get something out each one I read - then re-read!

The one thing I try to keep in mind about their various recommendations - including starting hand tables - is that they are trying to communicate the basics to the masses who buy their books and I'm sure they would be the first to acknowledge that with experience, the charts and recommendations have to be adapted to the table conditions. Anyone reading Phil Helmuth book 'Play Like A Pro' (now that tilte is a joke) would quickly discover playing his recommended hands (only the top 10) would have you playing one hand an hour, bored to death and easier to read than his book!

Have fun with the thread - I'll watch from the sidelines for a while - think I've said enough for now!

Originally Posted by Aces-o-8's

The one thing I try to keep in mind about their various recommendations - including starting hand tables - is that they are trying to communicate the basics to the masses who buy their books and I'm sure they would be the first to acknowledge that with experience, the charts and recommendations have to be adapted to the table conditions.

You forgot to add that if you're buying a book, you've already searched and found somewhere on the web an abundance of starting hand crap.

I'm not bashing Miller. The Tomato loves the book and has taken a lot from it. She brings up a lot of things that she questions and interesting points all the time. She's read it twice and refers to it like I do with HEFAP.

I actually in the minority that loved Hellmuth's book. I needed it at the time and it I refer to it a bunch for PLO tidbits. I was struggling with a lot of the advanced math at the time and the book helped me develop my own method. Once I had that, I had something to stick to. The Top 10 crap was stupid, but behind the fluff of him, he's a very good thinker.

I hear he sucks at PLO, but the stuff in that PLO chapter is VERY, VERY good.

Limping in (open limping that is) is awful, with marginal hads like we are discussing, for 4 reasons

#1 you are basically announcing your hand as marginal. Like I said before, limping in up front you are telling them your hand is not great. You should be playing it just like you play AA or AK

#2 you are losing information about other hands. Who knows what the fuck the donkeys are playing in LP for 1 bet or from the SB. AND THIS IS WHERE AND WHY YOU WILL MAKE MISTAKES POST-FLOP, your lack of information. This is so underestimated. Not gathering information is what leads to mistakes post-flop, hence why calling stations suck, they never gather information

#3 you are giving the donkeys odds to play 45s, 9T, and A6. You are turning what should be a mistake into a correct play

#4 You are taking away your chance to win uncontested both pre-flop and on the flop, since they will not respect your hand because you limped in a continuation type bet is nullified.

Gir, you're not looking to get it heads up. You are looking to disguise your hand and mix up your play. If it gets heads up so be it but that is tertiary to the other 2 reasons. Raising 55 or KJs in EP should be an exception not the rule. Use whatever the outcome of the hand to your advantage later on, THIS IS WHY YOU MIX UP YOUR PLAY OCCASIONALLY.

Its a runoff from the other thread and i lost track of which was which, Sorry supreme Beavis. He'll get the point no matter which thread it's in.

Apparently my advice doesn't apply because of this.

Girevik has never posting in this thread, so I don't understand why you are addressing him

I don't understand why you have to comment on it all, so I guess we're even